Ex Parte MOFFITT

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2018

13796249 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/796,249 03/12/2013 Theodore P. MOFFITT
44257 7590 06/20/2018
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- -Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
016928USA/FEP/RTP/PJT 1327
EXAMINER
MAYE,AYUBA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THEODORE P. MOFFITT
Appeal2017-007250
Application 13/796,249
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-8. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Applied Materials, Inc. is the Applicant and is identified as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 9-20 are cancelled. See Amendment 2 (filed August 9, 2016).
Appeal2017-007250
Application 13/796,249
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention is directed to "a pulse width controller
incorporated in a laser thermal processing apparatus." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter.
1. An optical apparatus, comprising:
a first rotatable wave plate having an optical axis;
a polarizing beam splitter with a reflecting axis and a
transmitting axis, wherein the transmitting axis is substantially
parallel to the optical axis of the first rotatable wave plate;
a first reflector positioned along the transmitting axis and
propagating a first deflected electromagnetic radiation along a
first deflection axis; and
a second reflector positioned to receive electromagnetic
radiation originating from the first reflector and propagate a
return electromagnetic radiation to the polarizing beam splitter
along the reflecting axis.
REJECTION3
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a) as anticipated by
Fukumitsu (US 2012/0061356 Al, published Mar. 15, 2012).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Fukumitsu discloses all the limitations of
claim 1 including a first rotatable wave plate 104, a polarizing beam splitter
106, a first reflector 108, and a second reflector 110 arranged as recited.
Final Act. 3 (citing Fukumitsu ,r,r 59-63, Abstract, Figs. 9, 11, 12).
Appellant contends that none of Fukumitsu's mirrors 108, 109, or 110
3 A rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is
moot in light of Appellant's cancellation of claims 9-20. Final Act. 2;
Amendment 2.
2
Appeal2017-007250
Application 13/796,249
shown in Figure 9 "are positioned to propagate a laser light to the
polarization beam splitter 106." Appeal Br. 6. With respect to Figure 11 of
Fukumistu, Appellant contends that "mirror 110 is not positioned to
propagate a pulsed laser light to the polarization beam splitter 201." Id. at 7.
With respect to Figure 12 of Fukumistu, Appellant contends that
assuming arguendo the polarization beam splitter 107 is equivalent to
the claimed polarizing beam splitter, the dichroic mirror 304 is
equivalent to the claimed second reflector, and the dichroic mirror 303
is equivalent to the claimed first reflector, Figure 12 does not show a
first reflector positioned along the transmitting axis of the polarizing
beam splitter 107.
Id. at 8.
In the Answer, the Examiner states that in Figure 12 of Fukumitsu,
"mirror (303) [is] positioned to propagate a laser light (LI) to polarization
beam splitter (106)." Ans. 5. The Examiner then states that Figure 12
discloses "that first reflector (108) is positioned along the transmitting axis
of the polarizing beam splitter (106), which ... is the same as element 128
of figure 1 which is between elements (106) and (108) of appellant's
drawing." Id. at 6 (emphasis added). The Examiner continues that Figure
12 discloses "a second reflector (304 or 109) positioned to receive
electromagnetic radiation (L2) originating from.first reflector (303) and
propagate a return electromagnetic radiation to the polarizing beam splitter
( 106 or 107) along the reflecting axis." Id. at 7 ( emphasis added).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues, with respect to Figure 12 of
Fukumitsu, that the Examiner equates mirror 108 to the recited first reflector
and mirror 109 to the recited second reflector, but mirror 109 is not
positioned to propagate a return electromagnetic radiation to a polarizing
3
Appeal2017-007250
Application 13/796,249
beam splitter along the reflecting axis. Reply Br. at 3. Appellant next
argues that the Examiner alternatively equates mirror 303 to the recited first
reflector and the mirror 304 to the recited second reflector, but mirror 304
does not propagate a return electromagnetic radiation to a polarizing beam
splitter along the reflecting axis. Id. at 4. For the following reasons, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellant's Figure 1 illustrates an embodiment of the claimed optical
apparatus. In the embodiment, energy pulses 124 are transmitted through
first rotatable wave plate 102. Spec. ,r,r 16, 23, Fig. 1. First rotatable wave
plate 102 is optically coupled to polarizing beam splitter 104. Id. ,r 16, Fig.
1. Polarizing beam splitter 104 reflects radiation along axis 126 and
transmits radiation along axis 128. Id. Transmitted radiation 128 impinges
on first reflector 108, which propagates radiation along first deflection axis
130 to second reflector 110. Id. ,r 17, Fig. 1. Second reflector 110 deflects
the radiation propagated along deflection axis 130 such that the deflected
radiation is delivered along the reflecting axis 126 to polarizing beam splitter
104. Id.
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner identifies Fukumitsu's element
106 as corresponding to the recited polarizing beam splitter, element 108 as
corresponding to the recited first reflector, and element 110 as corresponding
to the recited second reflector. Final Act. 3. Figure 9 of Fukumitsu shows
that polarizing beam splitter 106 reflects radiation received from waveplate
104 in an upward vertical direction. See Fukumitsu, Fig. 9. Element 110 of
Fukumitsu reflects radiation in a downward vertical direction onto an object
1 to be processed. Id. ,r 3 8, Fig. 1. In Figure 11 of Fukumitsu, beam splitter
201 reflects radiation vertically downward with second reflector 110 also
4
Appeal2017-007250
Application 13/796,249
reflecting radiation vertically downward. However, in neither Figure 9 nor
Figure 11, does second reflector 110 "propagate a return electromagnetic
radiation to the polarizing beam splitter along the reflecting axis" of the
beam splitter as required by claim 1.
With respect to Figure 12 of Fukumitsu, beam splitters 106 and 107
reflect radiation along an axis that is vertically upward and vertically
downward, respectively. See id. at Fig. 12. None of reflectors 109, 110, or
304 "propagate a return electromagnetic radiation to the polarizing beam
splitter along the reflecting axis" of either of beam splitters 106 or 107 as
required by claim 1. Consequently, the Examiner's finding that Fukumitsu
anticipates claim 1 is not supported by the disclosure in Fukumitsu, as
illustrated in Figures 9, 11, or 12, which are relied by the Examiner in
support of the rejection. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
1 as anticipated by Fukumitsu, nor do we sustain the rejection of claims 2-8
which depend from claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 is reversed.
REVERSED
5